Plant&Equipment

Plant&Equipment
Professional
Introducing the
Kerb Caddy Easylifter
A1 for
A-Plant
A revolution in
cable detection?
Expert opinion:
loading and unloading
vehicle accidents
OPERC and Saint
Gobain Abrasives
collaborate on HAV
February 2008

news
2
February 2008

Editorial
What an unenviable mess the industry seems
to have got itself into over the issue of quickhitch
devices. Some have suggested that semi
hydraulic links be completely banned but not
only would this cost plant hire companies and
construction contractors a fortune, it would also
totally fail to address the fundamental issues
at hand. Semi hydraulic hitches are as safe as
any other type of hitch, provided they are fitted
correctly and operated by trained and competent
operators. It would appear that many of the
accidents witnessed derive from a complete
lack of training on this essential safety device.
Plant and equipment of any shape or size has
the potential to cause harm, injury or fatality and
training and competence is the most effective
means via which to reduce this risk. Managers
must also make sure that other operatives on site
are excluded from a machine’s operational area
– this is a fundamental requirement that cannot
be ignored.
What is required is a holistic view of the problem
(which acknowledges and addresses root
causes) and whilst guidance documents such
as that produced by OPERC provide essential
information, such guidance alone will not
succeed in reducing accidents and incidents.
Where there are official consultations, these
must incorporate all parties – if they do not, this
will at the very least slow down any outcomes
emanating from the discussion.
Editorial Team
Philippa Spittle, Karen Jones
Published by
Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC)
Distributed by:
IRAS Group
Off-highway Plant and Equipment Research Centre (OPERC)
PO Box 5039, Dudley, West Midlands, DY1 9FQ
Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1384 356202
Email: enquiries@operc.com (general)
pep@operc.com (newsletter)
Web: www.operc.com
Copyright © 2008 OPERC
While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy
of information published in Plant and Equipment
Professional, neither the Editors nor the Off-highway
Plant and Equipment Research Centre can accept any
responsibility for inaccuracies or omissions. The views
expressed in articles are of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Editors or the Off-highway
Plant and Equipment Research Centre.
4
6
6
8
9
10
12
15
16
20
21
22
23
24
26
30
31
32
34
35
35
36
38
40
41
42
43
45
46
47
OPERC and Saint Gobain Abrasives
collaborate on HAV
Speedy Hire score award hat-trick
HSE warning after worker dies falling from a lorry
D Wardle (Plant) Ltd adds Volvo’s flagship
excavator to its fleet
Struck by moving vehicles
It’s a steal! 2nd Edition of OPERC’s guidance on
plant theft released
Expert Opinion: Loading and unloading
vehicle accidents
Lifting the veil on dust
A revolution in cable detection?
Volvo minis prove a great success at Alloa Hire Centre
A-Plant champions the environment
HSE warns safety comes first after
rogue gas installer jailed
OPERC release new guidance on
working near underground services
Introducing the Kerb Caddy Easylifter by SPS
Training: the key to competence in quarrying
Standards vs best practice
Have you found the Missing List?
The OPERC-Safetynet health and safety test
A1 for A-Plant
Changes within the HSE Noise and Vibration Team
Meet OPERC’s master engraver
DRS demolishing the South West
Friend or foe? All terrain vehicles
JCB support for NSPCC
Dreams come true for JCB fanatic
CMPE record 20,000th CoC plant operator
Do you HAV good data?
Introducing EngD award at Loughborough University
Spot the difference competition
News Megabytes
Letters to the Editor
February 2008
3

News
OPERC and
Saint Gobain
Abrasives
collaborate
on HAV
It is almost three years since the Hand-arm
Vibration Test Centre (HAVTEC) was launched at
Loughborough University by Dr David J. Edwards
and Dr Neil Mansfield, and an agreement made
to publish the HAVTEC register on the OPERC
website. Since then, thousands of tools and
appendages have been tested and the team at
Loughborough University now have perhaps the
most comprehensive repository of real life testing
data anywhere on the planet. However, in recent
times the scope of the centre has expanded. Not
only are the vibration exposures for new tools
measured, but also for old tools. Furthermore,
the centre is assisting manufacturers in
the development and redesign of tools and
equipment. Commenting on the centre,
Dr Edwards said:
“HAVTEC is there to protect and educate
people working with vibrating plant and
equipment; it is only natural therefore that
the centre should evolve to address
more complex issues and expand
current knowledge.”
One exciting development has been a new
research project commissioned by Saint Gobain
Abrasives. For many years, Saint Gobain has
led the field with its innovative research into
floor, tile and masonry saws. However, in recent
years experts within the company have also
acknowledged the value of consulting with
external specialists.One important issue facing
Saint Gobain is that of hand-arm vibration (HAV)
and how to reduce vibration from its equipment
to levels capable of enhancing operator comfort
without impacting upon machine performance.
This is essentially the conundrum facing all plant
and equipment manufacturers.
4
February 2008

news
Speaking on behalf of Saint Gobain, Mr Chris
Adams, technical expert on HAV, said
“The issue of HAV is critically important
for Saint Gobain because we acknowledge
the needs of our customers to protect their
workers. We also acknowledge that companies
within the Major Contractors Group (MCG)
require valid independent data from a reliable
source and for us the only credible option was
to test at HAVTEC.”
He continued “We want to ensure that our next
generation of floor saws retain the essential
qualities that have made them world class but that
their design is improved to take account of new
legislation such as the Physical Agents Directive.
The research project has essentially taken current
machines and tested them on a wide range of
typical workplace applications using a range of
disc types. This is because it is important that we
first understand the source of vibration and how it
transmits to the operator before engineering the
product. Working with Loughborough University,
we are now designing and redesigning the next
generation of floor saw and we hope to launch our
new range within the UK next year.
Dr Edwards said “This is currently the most
comprehensive piece of research work undertaken
by the centre to date and the results will lead to
significant improvements in machine design and
performance. We are delighted to be working on a
project that will have significant impact and value
for industry.”
He continued “A team led by Dr Luca Notini,
Loughborough University, has placed electronic
sensors on various places on each item of
equipment studied in order to explore the flow of
vibration from the power source. Our aim is to stem
that vibration transmitted to an absolute minimum.
We have achieved this in trials but are pleased to
be working on this live project.”
A large amount of data on Saint Gobain products
has already been successfully recorded and
loaded onto the HAVTEC register. This includes
data for many new products such as tile saws and
table top masonry saws and at this present time,
Saint Gobain are the only manufacturer to provide
real life data on this range of products.
Speaking from OPERC, Mr Graham Eaves, former
OPERC president, said
“It is encouraging to see that reputable
companies such as Saint Gobain have
embraced the concept of independent testing
and collaboration on mechanical engineering
design. This is a very exciting project and
anticipated outcomes of the work will be of
benefit to all.”
February 2008
5

News
SPEEDY HIRE score award hat-trick
Newton-le-Willows-based hire company Speedy Hire has been named
the UK’s best for the third time, thanks to its work in helping to improve
the safety of construction workers.
Speedy, the UK’s largest tool and equipment hire
business with over 500 depots nationwide, won
trade-bible Contract Journal’s ‘Best Hire Company’
award after launching its latest health and safety
campaign focussed on dust control.
Speedy’s award-winning ‘Safety From The Ground
Up’ campaign, which is in its third year and
primarily targeted at construction workers, aims
to increase the awareness of risk and promote
safer practice when working. Neil Thompson,
group brand manager for Speedy Hire, said: “This
latest achievement is further evidence of how the
business is going from strength to strength. This
year we’ve won numerous awards for our health
and safety campaigns and our CSR position and
this industry award is the icing on the cake.”
From the left: Vicky Butler-Henderson, New Holland Sales and
Marketing Director Kevin Purcell; Alan Gorman, Speedy Hire Director
of National Accounts and Contract Journal Editor Emma Penny.
HSE warning
after worker
dies falling
from a lorry
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned
employers of the need to undertake proper risk
assessments in order to manage their employees’
health, safety and welfare. The warning comes after
an HSE prosecution resulting from the death of a
Wirral lorry driver.
TNT Logistics UK Ltd of TNT House, Holly Lane,
Atherstone, Warwickshire, was fined £120,000
and ordered to pay total costs of £28,184.75 after
pleading guilty at Manchester Crown Court to
breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at
Work etc Act 1974.
Lorry driver Derek Howe, aged 56, suffered fatal
injuries on 15 May 2004 when he fell off a lorry
parked at TNT’s premises at Brinell Drive in Irlam.
He was trying to help free a worktop on the back of
the lorry when he fell approximately two metres onto
the concrete yard.
HSE inspector Richard Clarke said: “Mr Howe’s
death could have been prevented if TNT had
taken appropriate precautions in line with health
and safety legislation. Every year 2,000 people
are injured at work falling from vehicles. Falls are
currently the second highest cause of fatalities
and injuries in the transport industry. Even falling
a short distance can be very serious, or even fatal.
Employers and self-employed people operating
lorries need to avoid the need for work at height
on the lorry wherever possible. Where that is not
possible, they must take measures to prevent falls.
Companies should ensure staff are adequately
trained in how to reduce the risks. Climbing on
top of loads should be avoided wherever possible
and permanent platforms or gantries may assist
with this.”
6
February 2008

February 2008
7

News
D Wardle (Plant) Ltd
adds
Volvo’s
flagship
excavator
to its fleet
Earthmoving and general plant hire
specialist D Wardle (Plant) Ltd of
Warrington, Lancashire has taken
delivery of a Volvo EC700BLC excavator
as a prime mover for its larger muck
shifting contracts
The new seventy tonne excavator supplied in mass
excavation configuration concludes the delivery of a
range of Volvo Construction Equipment products ordered
by D Wardle this year. This includes eighteen articulated
dump trucks, equally split between the A25D, A30D and
A40E models, and three medium sized loading shovels –
all of which are incremental to Wardle’s fleet for 2007.
Whilst the majority of this latest batch of equipment has
been acquired for D Wardle’s earthmoving contracts for
major blue chip quarrying companies, the two L110E
and L180E loading shovels have been purchased for
the company’s long-term contract rental fleet. “This
is an increasingly significant part of our fleet, and our
continuing relationship with Volvo means we are able
to offer a nationwide service - safe in the knowledge
that with Volvo’s customer support outlets and our own
field service capabilities, we can provide our respective
customers with complete peace of mind,” commented
Managing Director, Mr Scott Wardle.
Part of D Wardle’s investment in its contract rental
division is the recruitment of Doug Lockwood, who
has many years service selling Volvo Construction
Equipment for Volvo in the North West of England, and
brings with him a wealth of experience. The other part
of the equation is Wardle’s investment in environmental,
quality and health and safety management issues to
achieve BVQI and ROSPA accreditation to raise the
operating profile of the company.
D Wardle (Plant) Ltd is based at Appleton, Warrington
and has over forty years experience servicing the
quarrying, excavation and plant hire industries.
Volvo Construction Equipment Ltd market wheeled
loaders, articulated haulers, hydraulic excavators,
graders, Volvo Compact Equipment and Volvo Road
Machinery products. Nine strategically placed customer
support centres and a network of compact equipment
dealers ensure high quality customer support
throughout Great Britain.
For further information, please contact:
Mark Gunns, Marketing Services
Tel: 01223 251720 Email: mark.gunns@volvo.com
8
February 2008

special report
Struck by
moving
vehicles
It has been several years since OPERC launched
its then pioneering guidance document on mobile
off-highway machine all round awareness, but recent
figures released by the Health and Safety Executive
suggest that accidents and incidents involving being
struck by moving vehicles remain unacceptably high
and virtually unchanged.
The knee jerk reaction within some industry quarters
has been to promote technologically advanced aids
and devices that place additional resources at the
hands of the operator, whilst paying little attention
to those who work around the machine or the fact
that today’s machine operator suffers from cognitive
overload – no wonder, with machines that are fitted
with convex mirrors, radar, sonar, rear view cameras
and other such devices. The inexperienced safety
manager may be seduced into making what he/she
thinks is a well intentioned investment by retro-fitting
a machine with additional aids and devices, but then
finds that the anticipated rewards do not appear. A
familiar story? Often the path of least resistance,
better known as the easy option, is to fit
additional mirrors - an instant safety policy
for off-highway vehicles!
The only way to reduce accidents and
incidents involving being struck by
a moving vehicle is to radically
change the culture and attitude
of industry, both workers
and organisations. It may
be that management and
site / quarry workers are
not adequately trained
in plant management
theory, or that
pedestrians are not
being prevented
from entering
vehicles’ safe operational envelopes, or that sites
are failing to design out the risk of vehicle/pedestrian
contact, whilst older machines are failing to meet new
standards of conformance or regulatory requirements.
The old adage, safe machine, site and operator is still
valid today.
The use of additional devices (in a similar way to
the use of PPE) should ideally be the last resort, as
every effort should first be made to eliminate the root
causes of the risk. Any retro-fitting should be based
upon a thorough risk assessment conducted by a
reputable company.
Consider the new ISO5006 guidance that points
towards a 1m x 1.5m rule for visibility as opposed to
the best practice and traditional 1m x 1m. In practice,
it doesn’t really matter which is used, as the final
decision for a specific machine should be based upon
the risk assessment for that machine, operating in
its given environment, performing its specific tasks.
A huge 300 tonne dragline operating in a quarry in
the middle of nowhere may pose a serious risk but
the likelihood of contact is minimal. Alternatively, a
small mini excavator on a building site may not pose
as serious a risk, but the likelihood of harm could be
higher given the nature of its use in confined spaces
and small sites where there is high pedestrian /
worker involvement.
These are simply examples to illustrate a point,
namely, that a robust risk assessment is of the
utmost importance! Such a risk assessment should
consider the choice of machine for a task, the
operator’s visibility within the machine, the nature
of the task being undertaken, site constraints, traffic
management routes and so forth. It is such careful
planning at the outset of an operation that will reduce
the number of struck by incidents.
February 2008
9

eview
It’s a Steal!
2 nd Edition of OPERC’s Guidance on
Plant Theft now available!
An independent Review by Dr Gary Holt
Following the success of its first guidance
document on this subject, OPERC is pleased
to announce that the second edition of Plant
and Equipment Theft: A Practical Guide is
hot off the press!
This expanded, more comprehensive
edition has been published in association
with Automatrics, Hewden Hire, Mtrack
and Thiefbeaters. It has been completely
revised and updated to present recent
plant theft statistics, report on technological
advancements in plant theft security and
stolen plant recovery systems and provide
even more practical guidance for owners and
operators on how to help make their assets
more secure. This is a ‘must read’ for all
involved with the ownership, or operation,
of plant and equipment.
The guide comprises an introduction to the
topic, three subject-specific chapters, a
summary, bibliographic references and finally
a helpful “Further Information” section. Many
of the subjects discussed throughout the guide
are complemented by figures, photographs
and tables of information. The chapters are
clearly structured for ease of reading and
the main points presented are conveniently
summarised at the end of each chapter.
and especially in the case of larger or more
expensive plant items, by ‘professional’, more
organised, thieves, who tend to feed the
products of their often well designed, daring
and determined activities into international
criminal networks.
The chapter describes how smaller, easier to sell
stolen goods might turn up at your local ‘boot
market, whilst larger items, or those ‘stolento-order’,
are often used to carry out or fund
other types of criminal activity - including for the
purposes of terrorism.
The Nature and Extent of the Problem is the
subject of the second chapter. Did you know
for example, that the real extent of plant theft
is almost impossible to calculate if all costs
are taken into account? Consider the costs of
hiring replacement plant, of making up for lost
production and a delayed programme on site,
of paying increased insurance premiums and
policy excesses, of paying for the reporting and
administration of the process after a theft has
occurred and so on.
The first chapter after the general introduction,
entitled The Plant Theft Process, describes
those stages involved in taking plant, from
initial ‘identification’ of an asset to steal to its
ultimate disposal, resale or deployment. The
reasons behind why plant is stolen and the
motivators that fuel this criminal activity are
also explored.
It is explained that plant and equipment can
be taken by either amateur or ‘opportunist’
thieves, normally on the ‘spur of the moment’
and after their being presented with an
opportunity to do so – or alternatively,
10
February 2008

Review
Approximate estimates of the total value of plant
and equipment theft within the UK tend to settle
on a figure of about £100 million pounds per
annum – but this is for actual plant losses only –
and does not include the kinds of incidental costs
referred to above which could well double
this amount!
In providing practitioners and operators with
advice on how not to become a victim, the
biggest and third chapter in this guide is naturally
entitled How to Minimise The Risk of Plant and
Equipment Theft. A wealth of practical guidance
is available here in simple to understand terms
and this includes reference to:
Deterrent Systems – which can make plant
less appealing to a would-be thief – such as
by painting it a distinctive colour or by adding
identifying marks;
Preventative Systems – that can make it more
difficult to steal assets – such as by use of
physical locking mechanisms and alarms; and
Recovery Systems – which tend to locate or
track assets in transit – as a way to recover items
should they become stolen.
The guidance also covers plant personalisation,
hidden and overt marking systems, registration
schemes, various types of databases, alarm
configurations, immobilisers and numerous
recovery device options. Emphasis is given in the
discussion to latest technologies in the field, such
as the relevance of covert identifiers (including
radio frequency transmitters, DNA tagging and
chemical marking systems).
Recent developments in plant location systems
that utilise the (mobile phone) Global System for
Mobile Communications (GSM) location facility
are also explained – such progress has been
very useful in locating assets hidden in lorries,
containers and even underground car parks!
It is not overlooked that in addition to plant
security systems, site security is important
too – as is good operator practice, such
as remembering (or taking the time!) to fit
mechanical immobilisers at the end of the
working day. Finally, this chapter on
practical guidance concludes with discussion
on the installation and testing of security
systems and by offering advice on what to
do in the unfortunate event of becoming a
plant theft victim.
It would also seem an appropriate way to
conclude this article by repeating this advice.
So, if you do have an item of plant or equipment
stolen, then:
q
q
q
q
act right away, don’t ignore what has
happened;
inform all relevant parties, such as the
police and your insurer;
preserve any evidence, such as by
taking details of witnesses to the crime or
photographs of the crime scene; and
provide all relevant parties with as much
information as possible, to help them
recover your property.
With regard to the last point, it is critically
important to keep good records of your
assets – VIN numbers, database records and
photographs, for example. It is surprising just
how many plant owners do not record such
precious information!
Plant and Equipment Theft: A Practical Guide
(2nd Edition) is available to buy from the
OPERC on-line bookshop. Price £25.00
(special discounted price for OPERC
Members is just £17.50).
Order your copy right away!
February 2008
11

Expert opinion
Expert opinion:
Loading and unloading vehicle accidents
Three million people in Great
Britain work on or near vehicles,
and worryingly the transport
industry continues to have one of
the worst safety records.
Unfortunately the risk of falling from vehicles,
particularly during loading and unloading is still
underestimated, and the need for more effective risk
assessments and implementation of safety controls,
and greater co-operation between duty holders has
never been greater.
Every year an average of five workers die and
2,000 more suffer serious injuries after falling from
a vehicle at work. The impact on the transport
industry is tremendous. In 2004/05 alone, 80,000
working days were lost due to falls from vehicles, at
a staggering financial cost in excess of £35 million.
Our figures show that a significant number of these
incidents occurred during the loading and unloading
of deliveries and collections. 90% of the falls from
vehicles reported to us are the result of falling from
less than head height, mostly from the load area, yet
this activity is still only viewed as incidental to the
main job and not considered to be of particular risk
to workers. In reality, moving goods during
deliveries and collections is not only essential to
business, it also poses a very real threat to the
safety of workers, and must be sensibly managed.
In October this year, TNT Logistics UK Ltd were
ordered to pay over £148,000 in fines and costs
after pleading guilty to two charges of breaching
health and safety law, after the death of one of
their lorry drivers. Derek Howe suffered fatal head
injuries in May 2004 after falling from the back of a
lorry onto a concrete floor. The lorry was stationary
and Derek fell just 2 metres.
The death of Mr Howe highlights the tragic reality
that falls from vehicles, even from a low height, can
be fatal. The frustration I feel is that this death would
have been entirely preventable if TNT had put in
place simple cost effective solutions to manage the
risk of employees of falling from their vehicles.
My advice is that if you are planning the loading
and unloading of goods, carefully assess the tasks
involved, identify the hazards and control them
with effective solutions that are implemented and
reviewed regularly. It can be incredibly useful to
consult with the workers who use the vehicles, as
they are the people who know how the job is done
and normally have good ideas about how to make it
safer and more efficient.
12
February 2008

Expert opinion
This article was outlined by Ms Carol Grainger,
HSE Workplace Transport Programme Manager
You could consider the following
possible solutions:
Reduce the need for people to go on the load
area and catwalk and ensure correct ordering
of the load, so that the position of orders on
the load bed matches the order of delivery and
reduces the need for drivers to climb on the
load
Analyse tasks to reduce slips and trips risk.
Pushing or pulling loads or manual handling
can make things worse; you should aim to
reduce such activities and minimise the number
of times that drivers have to get in and out of
the cab and on and off the back of the vehicle
Consider the job design and how ‘task and
finish’ can apply pressure to get the job done
quickly. It is important in managing loading and
unloading activities that people have the time
to do the job safely
Provide driver training to avoid slips and trips
and include aspects such as safe access and
avoiding jumping from the vehicle
Provide drivers with systems to document and
report defects with safety equipment, such as
steps or catwalks, to management.
Involve drivers in the selection of new vehicles
and other safety equipment such as footwear
Feed what you learn from risk assessment and
accident investigations into the specification of
future vehicles.
Communicate with sites where your drivers
are making deliveries to make sure the
arrangements are in place to enable safe
loading/unloading
Think in terms of hierarchy of controls. Plan work
to avoid work at height where you can, if you can’t
make sure you use work equipment to prevent falls
– vehicle based systems are best. If the risk of a
fall can’t be eliminated, use equipment to minimise
the distance and consequences of a fall and always
consider measures that protect everyone at risk,
for example, platforms and guardrails, rather than
measures that only protect the individual.
It is also vital that there is better co-operation
between all the parties involved in delivering and
collecting goods i.e. the supplier who sends the
goods, the company carrying the goods, and the
recipient of the goods. Although the safety of
employees is primarily the responsibility of their
employer, if a delivery accident occurs, all parties
in the chain may be asked to show how they took
reasonable steps to co-operate to achieve safety.
The three key rules to effective co-operation
are; send out safety information on deliveries
and collections to other parties in the delivery
chain; request safety information on deliveries
and collections from other parties in the delivery
chain; and agree a safe delivery plan. Safety
arrangements should be assessed before orders are
taken or placed, and incorporated into order taking
documents, and the driver should receive adequate
safety information for each delivery or collection
beforehand.
HSE’s current ‘Falls from Vehicles’ campaign
has a wealth of information, including work
sheets, case studies and checklists, for
vehicle buyers, fleet and depot managers, and
workers themselves. For more information,
please visit the interactive website at http://
www.hse.gov.uk/fallsfromvehicles/index.htm
February 2008
13

special report
Lifting
the veil
on Dust
Dust is THE topic for health, safety
and welfare practitioners at present
and there is currently a flurry of activity
within trade and professional bodies
to produce appropriate guidance
documents. Perhaps one of the most
useful resources to be found is the lively
on-line discussion forum established
by the Health and Safety Executive
(details below). Various contributions
have been made to date as part of a
constructive debate and the discussions
are extremely useful and enlightening.
One line of discussion has focused upon
what can be done to reduce the risk
posed by dust and many have suggested
that the risk should be designed
out completely at project inception.
Essentially, the theory is that if the need
for electric or mechanical power tools is
designed out, then the risk is eliminated
at source. This philosophy also
conveniently fits into the construction
and highway industries’ push for
standardisation of building components,
off site manufacture and buildability,
leading ultimately to cost reductions and
productivity improvements. The question
is, does such a philosophy work in real
life? The answer is simply NO.
If the construction industry produced factory controlled
utilitarian concrete boxes in place of dynamic construction
projects, and there was no existing housing stock or
infrastructure to maintain, then designing out the risk could
work. In reality, it will only work for those new projects that
can manufacture components and simply assemble them
on site. For all other construction and highways projects
a more holistic approach is needed. Although this should
include consideration of designing out the risk, thought
must also be given to dust suppression, dust extraction,
the safe use of PPE, operator training, innovative tool
design and so forth. Of course it would be idyllic if design
could be the solution to the dust problem, but this would
require an industry that does not have to renovate old
buildings, demolish existing structures, repair
underground services or maintain existing
structures. As long as industry has to deal with
muck and bullets, dust will remain a problem
and therefore industry needs resources,
facilities and innovations to reduce the risk
posed. The key has to be education and what
is good about the HSE forum is that it has very
successfully engendered the debate so that
solutions are already in the making
To add your voice to this debate, visit the:
Project for Reducing Respiratory Disease
in Kerb, Paving and Block Cutting
URL: http://webcommunities.hse.gov.uk/
inovem/inovem.ti/kerbcutting.community
February 2008
15

Special report
A revolution in cab
detection
but essentially, the following
minimum requirements should
be included, so as to ‘PACE’ the
work (Plan, Ask, Confirm and
Excavate safely).
PLAN The work must be planned
before it is started to ensure
the use of safe methods and
competent workers. Of course,
it might not always be possible
to plan as much as one would
like, such as when undertaking
emergency excavation work.
Each year millions of
pounds of costs are
incurred, as a result of
utility and construction
contractors hitting
major underground
services, such as
electricity and gas,
when carrying out
excavation work.
In addition to these financial
losses, the problem is further
compounded by the everpresent
risk of personal injury,
or even fatality, from workers
coming into contact with live
underground services. There is
also the possibility of disruption
to businesses, or loss of essential
or emergency services, when
underground energy supply
equipment gets damaged.
To address these problems,
leading research centres have
started to record and ‘map the
underworld’ which means they
are recording as accurately as
possible, the position of existing
services within the ground, both
from known records and when
services are discovered during
digging work. This is being done
so that future utility work can be
aware of these locations and
therefore allow excavation work
to be undertaken in more relative
safety. While this will be useful in
the future, the mapping will take
many years to complete.
In the UK the standard practice
to locate underground services
centres upon employing a ‘safesystem-of-work’.
In practice,
safe-systems-of-work will
vary between individual utility
or construction contractors,
ASK This essentially involves
asking for information on the
location of existing services
and equipment. It may entail
a ‘desk study’ (for example,
looking at historical records) and
asking utility companies where
their equipment is situated.
The latter may involve them
coming to site, to help find and
mark-up locations before works
commence.
CONFIRM Having asked for
location information, it must now
be confirmed on site that the
services are where they should
be! This will often involve the use
of a ‘CAT and Genny’ scan of
the area to be excavated, prior to
work starting.
EXCAVATE SAFELY Safe
digging methods should be
employed. The machine operator
must be extremely careful and
hand tools must be used in
favour of a machine if services
are nearby or a ‘suspicious’
object is found in the ground.
16
February 2008

Special report
le
?
From left to right: Yvonne Conway, Marketing Executive, Mr Richard Fling, Product Manager and Mrs Chris Swetnam,
Managing Director, Cable Detection.
If an incident occurs, and
assuming that the machine
operator has followed
instructions, then often, hitting a
service results from a breakdown
of communication between these
four stages. That is, something
somewhere in this chain of
‘PACE’ events has gone wrong
and the operator is left to face
the consequences!
Examples include instances
where location drawings are
incorrect or incomplete, marked
areas on the tarmac or ground
are washed away, services are
‘missed’ during the scanning
stage, multiple services are
laid one on top of the other
and so on.
Introducing EZiDIG: Some
specification details
To help avoid some of the
problems described above,
Cable Detection (part of the
Hexagon Group including
Leica Geosystems) have just
launched a revolutionary, and
yet inherently simplistic, buried
service equipment location
system called EZiDIG.
EZiDIG provides an additional
and integral safety device for
machine operators working
near underground services.
The system works on the same
principle as a CAT scan, but
it contains more aerials to
produce a unique detection area
in the shape of a cone (similar
to the beam of light produced
by a torch) and it processes
all available frequencies
simultaneously.
This design allows the EZiDIG
to provide a continuous realtime
warning of the presence of
buried metallic services emitting
electromagnetic signals.
The system uses powerful
magnets to attach the scanning
device onto the inside of the
machine’s dipper arm; wires
then connect the EZiDIG to a
joint visual display and audible
alarm unit (VDU) that is mounted
inside the operator’s cab. The
VDU shows a graded fan shape
February 2008
17

Special report
A revolution in
cable detection
(continued....)
(like that of a discus thrower’s
field), that is coloured from yellow
through to orange and then red.
As with parking sensors the
display is inactive if no signal is
present . As soon as a signal
is detected the first yellow line
appears and the display moves
through amber and red as the
service gets nearer.
Cable Detection can either
install the device directly into
the machine’s electrical supply
or EZiDIG can simply use the
machine cigarette lighter / power
output socket.
The device has been designed
to allow the user to adjust the
sensitivity of the EZiDIG so as
to be able to work in an area
relatively congested with buried
services. So the user can dig
a trench parallel to an existing
metallic service by setting the
sensitivity to show that the
other service is present but
only creating a warning if the
operator starts to move nearer
to the existing service i.e. off the
parallel line.
Field trials
To test how well the EZiDIG
system works, Cable Detection
have been working with Dr
David Edwards of Loughborough
University, to carry out field
trials so as to provide an
independent view of this new
detection equipment.
To do this, in November 2007,
Dr Edwards visited a Birse Civil
Engineering site in Telford, during
a live trial with a sub-contractor
called JRB (Stoke) Ltd.
The tests were supervised by
Mr Chris Evans of JRB (Stoke)
Ltd and excavation works were
conducted by Mr Cathill Kelly.
Mr Kelly is a skilled operator with
over 15 years experience in the
industry and he had previously
been trained in the safe use
of the EZiDIG by Mr Richard
Fling, Product Manager,
Cable Detection.
The whole process of connecting
the device to the machine and
calibrating its sensitivity took
no more than ten minutes to
complete. A series of three trials
were then carried out to measure
the performance of EZiDIG
with a final trial to measure its
robustness to impact shock.
Trial one involved working
parallel to an excavation, to try
and detect a known three-phase
electric service cable that was
located within it.
Trial two involved detecting the
same cable but when working
across (perpendicular to) the
same excavation.
Trial three measured the
performance of EZiDIG when
working between two services,
one hidden (a street light cable)
and the other under the same
conditions as in trials one and
two above.
Across all three trials the
equipment exhibited detection
accuracy, so long as the dipper
arm did not curl back towards
the cab too far (i.e. to produce
an acute angle with the body
of the operator cab). Under
circumstances where this was
allowed to happen, the cone of
detection was pointed towards
the machine’s undercarriage as
opposed to the ground. Hence, it
failed to detect the cable because
there was no service under the
slew drive of the machine.
EZiDIG also lived up to its name,
in that the operator easily adjusted
the sensitivity of the device
during excavation works to suit all
conditions encountered on site.
One concern raised by Dr
Edwards focused on the almost
constant audio alarm emitted
from the device. This background
noise could be a source of huge
annoyance and past research
conducted by Dr Edwards has
revealed that noise can actually
have an adverse effect on
operator safety. In such instances
operators might perceive a source
of constant noise as an annoyance
and either try to vandalise the
source or ignore the audible
signal it is attempting to convey.
To address this issue, Cable
Detection have catered for
potential noise pollution by
allowing operators to set the
point at which the audible alarm
is activated.
18
February 2008

A final test observed the
robustness of the device to
impact shock. That is, following
impact, would the system remain
operational and would the
magnets continue to hold the
device to the dipper? Readers
from JRB (Stoke) Ltd may wish
to look away now (!) because,
the machine’s bucket was
energetically rammed onto the
top of a spoil heap over the
period of about three minutes and
numerous blows (as many as 50)
were rained down on it, before
the magnet finally lost contact
with the dipper arm. (As
a precaution against damaging
the unit, a restraint strap fitted
to it kept it suspended in mid
air, unharmed).
EZiDIG was then fitted back on
to the machine and tested again
for accuracy as per trial number
three. The system worked
perfectly, despite sustaining
abnormal abuse!
A critical appraisal of
the system
Necessity is the real driving
force behind any technological
innovation and the need for
safety improvements within the
utilities sector of UK industry is
apparent. Overall the EZiDIG
system produced some
impressive results and provided
the machine operator with an
invaluable fail-safe device.
Commenting after completion
of the trials, Dr David Edwards,
Loughborough University said:
“This is an extremely welcome
development from a visionary
team of experts at Cable
Detection. I am confident that
anyone working within the field
of health, safety and welfare can
benefit from this device and no
doubt progressive manufacturers
and hire companies will want to
see EZiDIG for themselves.”
Dr Edwards continued: “It is
however important to recognise
that EZiDIG is not a panacea to
the problem of buried services,
because some ‘marginally
detectable’ service equipment
or non-metallic pipes will not be
detected by it. The technology
used in the EZiDIG is the same
as that used in hand held CATs
so it will not find anything you
cannot find with a hand held
device. The benefit delivered
by the EZiDIG is that it provides
a continual watching system
and detects signals in several
frequencies from services
running in several directions.
It is also critically important that
operators receive adequate
training both in the use of
the system and the hazards
surrounding buried services
generally. This device has to be
put in the context of an overall
safe system of work.”
When asked about any limitations
Dr Edwards noted that: “The
cables linking the device to the
VDU need to be more robust
and fitted so as to prevent
contact damage. On this matter,
Cable Detection assure me
that a far more durable military
specification cable will be fitted to
production models and that easy
Special report
to read operation, maintenance
and fitting instructions will be
supplied with all devices. Cable
Detection also offer a training
course for the equipment – this
has to be welcomed by all”.
Advancements in science that
have the potential for tangible
impact at the workface, are
few and far between, but
the EZiDIG system is one
such advancement. Further
refinements to this prototype
can and will need to be made no
doubt, but with a system that can
save lives, money and time now,
can industry afford not to use it?
Anyone interested in EZiDIG
should contact:-
Mrs Chris Swetnam
Managing Director
Cable Detection Ltd.
Newstead House,
Alderflat Drive, Newstead
Industrial Estate, Trentham,
Staffordshire ST 8HX.
Tel: 01782 654456
Fax: 01782 642584
Email: Christine.swetnam@
leica-geosystems.com
Web: www.cabledetection.com
February 2008
19

news
Volvo minis prove a great
success at Alloa Hire Centre
Moving in to mini excavator hire with a Volvo
EC15BXTV in March has proved to be a great
success for Alloa Hire Centre as it takes delivery
of a second unit for its expanding hire fleet.
Alloa Hire Centre Ltd is one of Scotland’s
longest established tool hire centres servicing
Clackmannanshire and the central belt with a
delivery and collection service.
Volvo patented tilting counterweight allows easy
access to the engine. The one-piece cab floor
makes it easy to reach the spool valves while the
hoses supplying the boom are fitted externally
along the boom, keeping all connections within easy
reach. Again, ease of serviceability is important to
Alloa Hire Centre since they carry out all their own
basic maintenance of the machines.
Established twenty one years ago, the family run
business had, up until recently, concentrated
its hire activities to just small tools and static
equipment. The opportunity to expand into mobile
plant presented itself with the move to new
premises on the outskirts of Alloa in 2005. After
a careful evaluation of the market and advice
from third parties, Alloa Hire Centre purchased
its first compact excavator in March last year.
“Our initial consideration in choosing the Volvo
product was the fact that they have a support
centre close by in Stirling,” commented company
director, Barry MacPherson. “We’ve been really
impressed with the performance and reliability but
more importantly, so have our customers and the
demand has been such that we’ve taken a second
EC15BXTV into the fleet.”
For further information about Volvo products,
please contact: -
Mark Gunns
Marketing Services,
Direct Line: 01223 251720,
Fax: 01223 832799,
Mobile: 07974 973408,
Email: mark.gunns@volvo.com
Both machines have been supplied with trailers,
manual quick hitches and a full complement
of buckets. The XTV version of the EC15B
provides the additional features of
extendable undercarriage and two
speed tracking and to enhance
operator comfort they have been
supplied with full cabs. All
components and service
points are within easy
reach on the EC15B.
For instance, the
20
February 2008

news
A-Plant
champions the environment
A-Plant has introduced a
number of initiatives and
products designed to preclude
against any negative impact
on the environment. The new
developments are the result
of an environmental campaign
implemented by the company’s
Performance Standards team.
The new environment protection
solutions include the Plant
Nappy, a spill control system
for plant and machinery on site.
The Plant Nappy is a better
alternative to the use of drip
trays under plant and machinery
as the design allows spillages
of oil or fuel to be caught in the
base, whilst permitting rainfall to
escape through the side walls as
unpolluted groundwater.
The Plant Nappy is hardwearing
as it is specifically designed for
use on site and comprises a base
made from a non-permeable
fabric laminated with an oil
soak pad, with a permeable top
fabric to allow free passage of
contaminants. The side wall
features a filter fabric that allows
free passage of water but not oil,
so water can be discharged clean
to the environment.
A-Plant is also changing over
to the use of water based paint
for recoating the company’s
machines. The switch to water
based paint is intended to limit
the Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) content of the paints
used by A-Plant, thus reducing
emissions into the atmosphere
and complying with the first stage
of the COSHH Regulations, which
involves substituting a hazardous
product with a non hazardous
one. As well as protecting the
environment, A-Plant staff will
also benefit from better working
conditions.
A-Plant has an ongoing
commitment to improving
health and safety and is also
committed to minimising any risk
or negative impact the company
may have on the environment.
A-Plant’s dedication to protecting
the environment becomes
increasingly more important as
the construction industry is being
targeted by the Environment
Agency via the Sitewise II
Project to assist with improving
environmental awareness
and performance.
February 2008
21

News
HSE warns safety comes first
after rogue gas installer jailed
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued a
warning to the public to only allow CORGI registered
gas installers to work on their appliances. Every year
approximately 25 people die from carbon monoxide
poisoning caused by gas appliances and flues that have
not been properly installed or maintained.
The warning comes after David Mountford, from Longton,
Stoke on Trent, was sentenced to six months in prison,
on each of four charges, by Newcastle under Lyme
Magistrates Court on Friday 11 January 2008 (the
sentences to run concurrently).
Prosecution followed an investigation into numerous
incidents where Mr Mountford carried out work on gas
appliances whilst he did not possess CORGI registration.
He pleaded guilty to four charges of breaching HSE
Prohibition Notices and two charges of falsely claiming
CORGI registration. The court heard that work was
often carried out under different names, including David
Mansfield, and using different company titles.
Speaking after the case HSE investigating inspector Dr
Janice Dale said:
“HSE has pursued a long investigation of Mr Mountford’s
activities and we are therefore pleased that the
seriousness of his activities has been recognised in
the sentence. Mountford admitted falsely pretending to
be CORGI registered. As the Court heard Mountford
was prosecuted for similar gas work in 2005 and was
the subject of a Prohibition Notice in 2004 preventing
Mountford from carrying out gas work because he was not
competent and was not registered with CORGI.”
“He chose to ignore this and continued to carry out work
on gas appliances, putting the public at risk from both
carbon monoxide poisoning and gas explosions. Had
Mountford been registered with CORGI he would
have been subjected to regular scrutiny and checks of
his competence.”
“This case should serve as a reminder to the general
public that anyone they ask to undertake gas work must
be CORGI registered. If the installer does not have their
ID card, you should not let them into your property. You
can also check an installer’s registration on the CORGI
website. This case should also be a warning to
traders that they must be registered with CORGI
and only undertake work for which they are qualified
and competent.”
David Mountford pleaded guilty to:
Four breaches of Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and
Safety at Work Act 1974 – failing to comply with
Prohibition Notices served by HSE, which prohibited him
from carrying out work in relation to gas fittings unless and
until he became registered with CORGI; two breaches of
Regulation 3(7) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use)
Regulations 1998 – for falsely pretending to be a member
of CORGI.
Your virtual office assistant
Providing a 24/7 confidential, reliable and cost-effective on-line
transcription service for all your typing requirements.
To learn more about us, visit our website at:
www.typingmatters.co.uk.
For an informal discussion about our services please
contact us by:
Email: typingmatters@ntlworld.com
Tel: (01785) 606677
22
February 2008

news
OPERC release
new guidance on...
...working near
underground services
Several major utility companies have come together
to work with OPERC on the production of a new
training module for employees who work near
underground services. Companies who invested
time and energy in the creation of this new module
include A-Plant, Costain, Skanska, Laing O’Rourke,
Balfour Beatty Power Networks, Balfour Beatty
Utilities and Speedy Survey. Excellent technical
advice and guidance was also given by one of the
leading underground services detection companies
Cable Detection.
This new learning resource has been produced in
a similar three-part format to the other modules
available within OPERC’s lifelong learning zone.
Part one introduces the module’s contents, aims
and objectives and clearly states the designed
learning outcomes. Part two presents the main
learning materials in a clear and easy-to-understand
way and is well complemented with figures,
photographs and tables. A clearly presented
bullet point summary of all the key learning
points precedes part three, which provides self
assessment questions. These questions allow
learners to test what they have learned at any time
during the training process.
Mr Barry Robinson MBE, OPERC Chief Examiner
said “This new module represents the 31st such
module available within the OPERC lifelong
learning zone. It provides an invaluable resource
for any contractor who works around or near buried
services. The association is extremely grateful to
those companies and individuals who gave their
time to produce this resource for the benefit of
others. Education is the key to health and safety
statistics and this publication provides an excellent
basic introduction to this important topic.”
Readers who are interested in purchasing a
copy of this new resource should contact
OPERC at: enquiries@operc.com or visit
the OPERC on-line bookshop.
February 2008
23

Special report
As stated recently
by the Health and
Safety Executive
(HSE), more
than one million
people suffer
from work-related
musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs)
and there is an 80
percent chance
that at some point
in your life you
will develop low
back pain.
Mr Gary Dale, Specialist Plant Supplies Ltd
With the average sufferer taking 17
days off sick each year with MSDs
this equates to around 10 million
working days lost to UK industry
at an estimated value of £600m.
These simple statistics reveal that
manual handling is not an issue
that should be taken lightly –
pardon the pun!
One solution to reducing the
manual handling risks from
lifting heavy products, such as
kerb stones and paving slabs, is
the Kerb Caddy Easylifter. This
versatile piece of equipment was
the brainchild of Mr Patrick J
Walsh (known to his friends as
‘PJ’) who designed and developed
the equipment over a five year
period. Legend has it that Patrick
was so fed up with hurting his own
back that he decided that he and
fellow workers in industry deserved
something better and so the
Kerb Caddy Easylifter was born.
Patrick has a wealth of experience
within the construction and civil
engineering industries and had
been employed as a kerb layer for
over 30 years – so who better to
design such equipment?
Essentially, the Kerb Caddy
Easylifter allows one man to lift,
carry and position kerbs or slabs
up to a safe working load of 70kg.
This is achieved by the use of
scissor grips which are attached
to a two wheel carriage and are
fully adjustable both by height and
width; the height of the lift can be
24
February 2008

special report
increased or decreased by simply
raising the scissor frame.
The Easylifter is described as
offering the following advantages:
excellent manoeuvrability and
accuracy when placing or
lifting heavy building products;
a good robust mechanical
design that helps to minimise
the human effort required to
lift heavy materials;
the potential to reduce laying
and lifting times, which should
result in lower labour costs
and higher productivity rates;
and, perhaps above all,
the potential to reduce
accident rates and instances
of ill health.
Having designed the equipment
and had positive feedback from
its early buyers, the next issue
facing Patrick was how to sell
and distribute the Easylifter more
effectively, whilst still having the
time to run his own successful
kerb laying business. The solution
came in the form of a close friend
and colleague named Mr Gary
Dale. Gary started off in tool
hire and ran his own company
called Marchstream Ltd for over
20 years. Gary told us “Around
two years ago, I bought two Kerb
Caddy machines from PJ at
Easylifter Ltd and began to realise
the opportunity for the product to
improve health, safety and welfare
for those carrying out kerb or slab
handling. After much discussion
with PJ an agreement was made
that my new company called
Specialist Plant Supplies Ltd (SPS
Ltd) should manufacture and
distribute the equipment under
a licence agreement. To protect
our design and investment an
application was successfully made
and the Kerb Caddy Easylifter is
now protected by a patent office
registered community design”.
Gary continued “The product now
has a 2 year parts and labour
guarantee against any faulty
materials and with a list price of
£895 it is much cheaper than its
nearest competitors which cost
from £1,400. We also offer 24
hour spare parts and maintenance
repair and the equipment is very
easy to maintain.”
Speaking as an independent
observer, Dr David J. Edwards,
Loughborough University said
“This is a very promising piece of
equipment with good potential. It
is robustly designed and easy to
maintain, based upon the simple
idea of a lever system that is used
to lift materials into place. The
cost is not a prohibiting factor to
purchasing decisions considering
the benefits to be gained from
using the equipment and taking
into account other similar products
out there that can cost more. All
the best inventions are the simple
ones; this machine does exactly
what it is designed to do. I would
envisage that some of the more
proactive hire companies and
contractors in industry will be keen
to trial this equipment and judge
for themselves.”
OPERC Chief Examiner, Mr
Barry Robinson, MBE said “I am
delighted to see that technological
innovation has been used to
address a serious issue within
industry. SPS have set an
excellent standard for others to
now follow and OPERC Executive
wishes them every success with
this new exciting product.”
For more information, readers
should contact:
Mr Gary Dale:
Specialist Plant Supplies Ltd.
Unit 10, Maple Court
Crystal Drive, Smethwick
West Midlands, B66 1RB
Tel: 05601 122517
Tel/Fax: 0121 544 9880;
Mob: 07836 520760
Mr Patrick J Walsh:
Easylifter Ltd.
196 Wintersdale Road
Evington, Leicester
LE5 2GP
Tel/Fax: 0116 2412575
Mob: 07808 592870
February 2008
25

Special report
Training:
the key to
competence
in quarrying
One of the biggest
misconceptions surrounding
Scottish and National
Vocational Qualifications
(S/NVQs) is that many people
believe them to be training
courses. In actual fact,
S/NVQs are a measure of
existing competence to a
national standard. When
undertaking an S/NVQ it is
generally accepted that
the necessary and required
training has already been
carried out. If competence
is measured to a national,
audited and quality assured
standard, what of the training
that precedes it? Surely this
must also be subject to an
equally comprehensive,
measurable, national
standard. You may think that,
but you would be wrong…
How is Training Conducted?
Never before has the issue of adequate and
appropriate training for quarry personnel been
so crucial. Historically, the industry has an
ageing and contracting workforce, but now
things are beginning to change. The retirement
of many older employees working within
quarrying over the years has also coincided
with an influx of migrating workers from Europe.
This presents both new challenges and new
opportunities for the provision of effective mobile
plant training.
Traditionally, mobile plant training has been
carried out in a localised and informal way with
new operators learning from older and more
experienced colleagues. The obvious problem
with this approach is the lack of standardisation.
Operators working for the same company, even
on the same site, may have received different
instruction and learnt different techniques – not
all of which are desirable.
Smaller companies may call on the services of
independent plant trainers who are accredited
to issue licences once satisfactory training
has been conducted. Larger companies can
employ people to conduct plant operator training
within the organisation. This ensures a level
of consistency, but consistency with what?
Trainee operatives will still take their cues from
the person conducting their training. In the past,
new operatives would undergo basic training
and then carry out a suitable programme of work
of three months (which is recommended by the
licensing body but not a mandatory requirement)
to gain the appropriate licence. The logical
progression would then be to undertake an
S/NVQ at level 2.
It is interesting to note that although plant
operator licence schemes and S/NVQs may be
standardised and monitored, the quality and
delivery of basic operator training is not.
A potential solution to this problem would be for
all new operatives to undertake a standardised
induction & training programme endorsed by
the nationally recognised awarding body for the
industry. This could be a recorded, formalised
precursor to the S/NVQ and might even yield
useful evidence of a candidate’s learning
and competence. Although this could not be
made mandatory, it could be recommended as
best practice. At present the OPERC code of
practice for operator training is voluntary and
not mandatory, (although a mandatory code of
practice does exist for the training and use
of lift trucks).
26
February 2008

Special report
Obstacles to Training
One of the main problems with the way plant
operator training is currently carried out is the lack
of structured planning to meet the required training
needs. Individuals are often required to undertake
training on an ad-hoc basis, as and when the need
arises. This often means that plant operator
trainers are in short supply if the demand for
training increases.
Where training has traditionally consisted of nothing
more than watching an experienced operator
work, gaining authorisation to operate and then
being let loose on a quarry, then the expectations
and attitudes of employers with regard to a more
formalised, measured approach to training are often
unrealistic. An important point to note, however, is
that both the Provision & Use of Work Equipment
Regulations 1998 (PUWER) and the Quarries
Regulations 1999 state that sufficient training must
be carried out to ensure that competence is not only
achieved, but maintained.
Better communication between local site
management and training providers could help to
remedy this situation. In addition, the expectations
of learners, managers and trainers could be better
balanced in line with up to date methods of training
and relevant legislation.
a competent, skilled plant operator to supervise
a trainee because of production demands. Even
where a competent person is able to supervise
operation this often has to be done from outside
the cab of the vehicle, which makes observation of
what trainees are actually doing much more difficult.
Additional safe seating inside the cab could make
training and supervision much more effective for
both the trainer and the trainee.
An interesting opportunity for larger quarry operators
would be to have designated training areas, either
on site or at a convenient location (for example a
regional training centre or an inactive quarry), where
space and equipment are provided specifically for
the purpose of conducting training. There would be
obvious cost implications to this approach, but these
could be offset against the tangible improvements
gained from high quality operator training, such as
increased operational efficiency and improvements
to health and safety awareness. An additional
commercial opportunity would be to make the
facilities and equipment available for SME’s and
independent plant operation contractors. Currently,
it is practically impossible to undertake training
on quarry equipment, unless employed by a
quarry operator.
The fact that the quarrying industry is extremely
production orientated can impact on the availability
of suitable plant for operator training. Sometimes the
plant is simply not obtainable; on other occasions it
may not be serviceable due to outstanding defects
listed on the routine maintenance log.
Another training issue relating to production is that
of supervision. The Quarries Regulations 1999
state that a trainee should only operate under the
supervision of a competent person until the trainee
has reached an accepted level of competence.
In some cases managers are unable to assign
Routes to Competence
Generally speaking, there are two main routes to
competence in quarrying, either via the S/NVQ
or via one of a number of licensing schemes. It is
worth noting that neither route is mandatory for the
quarrying industry; the only legal requirement is that
competence can be proven. Nevertheless these are
the two main popular routes.
The S/NVQ approach requires operators to both
prove what they can do against nationally approved,
accredited standards and supply underpinning
knowledge as to why and how they operate over a
period of time in a real working situation. The uptake
of S/NVQs within the industry has been fairly
good over the past few years and the S/NVQ is well
recognised as a route to competence both nationally
and within the industry.
With regards to licensing schemes, the industry
collectively adopted a recognised, industry-specific,
nationalised license which was available from the
then National Training Organisation (NTO). Sector
Skills Council’s (SSC’s) have subsequently replaced
NTO’s and the SSC for quarrying is Proskills. cont.
February 2008
27

special report
Training: The key to
competence in quarrying
(cont...)
Where licenses are particularly useful is in
proving competence across a selection of plant
categories and on new pieces of equipment. The
main disadvantage of the licensing schemes for
quarrying is that one of the UK’s most popular
plant license schemes, although nationally
recognised and accredited, is designed for the
construction industry and not the extractive
industry, so the operational context for the
scheme is inappropriate. The other existing
licensing scheme that is appropriate to the
industry’s operational context, is not awarded by
a nationally accredited approved awarding body
or SSC.
One of the problems with both of these methods
of demonstrating competence is that they are
stationary, as opposed to continual and ongoing,
i.e. they both prove competence on a particular
date. The S/NVQ may also prove competence
over a period of time, but both methods will
require updating at regular intervals by means
of continuing professional development (CPD)
and detailed training records. Some licensing
schemes however, have a structured approach
to progression, whereby an interim or provisional
licence is acquired which allows the trainee to
gain experience (by putting in operational hours)
before undertaking the S/NVQ and graduating to
the full licence.
Training – the Future
One of the biggest impacts on how training is
delivered is the development of technology and
our aptitude at using it. Whether a ‘technophile’ or
a ‘technophobe’, technology is an issue that will
not go away. Digital presentations breathe life into
learning and a new dimension to tackling theories,
methods and underpinning principles. Advice and
sources of additional information can be made
available online as can the conduct of assessment
for S/NVQs. Evidence of competence for S/NVQs
can be captured and recorded using digital pictures
and sound recordings; electronic portfolios can be
used to facilitate the assessment of candidates in
remote locations and where distance learning may
be required.
It is not necessary to be an IT specialist to benefit
from improvements to the delivery of learning &
training. The OPERC online Safetynet (health and
safety) test is an example of this. A brief tutorial and
a simple, easy to use interface mean that individuals
can effectively provide evidence of their knowledge
as it relates to their job, referenced to the S/NVQ
standards. The test can also be used to highlight
potential training needs and can give detailed
information on the areas where existing knowledge
is insufficient.
The quarrying industry has invested much time and
money in proving the competence of the existing
workforce and benchmarking this competence using
nationally recognised standards. But the profile of
the industry’s employees is changing both with the
retirement of many established, long-serving staff
and the recruitment of new people, from within
the UK and the EU. Now is a great opportunity
to examine how grass-roots operator training is
conducted and standardised and how it can be
improved to meet future industry needs and deliver
effective benefits.
Gavin Brain
BA(Hons), MIQ, MIVA
Gavin is an occupational competence specialist
with a background in assessment, internal
verification and external verification for a number
of S/NVQ subjects and awarding bodies. He has
been actively involved in promoting competence
within the UK quarrying industry for 9 years and
has also been involved in setting up, monitoring
and advising S/NVQ assessment centres for a
number of quarry operators.
28
February 2008

special report
Standards
vs
best practice
Plant and equipment operators, managers and
owners are largely governed by standards and
company (or industry) best practice guidelines.
Throughout industry, manufacturers will refer to
the international standard and training providers
will refer to regulations and best practice stemming
from these. Professional associations may refer
to their professional guidance that attempts to
combine both standards and best practice into one
comprehensive document. So the range and depth
of information to support industry is huge
and comprehensive.
However, for the safety conscientious manager
or safety advisor, the quantity of information
available can be daunting and he/she can easily
wonder which advice should be used and whether
the advice will provide adequate guidance and
protection for employers or workers? The answer
is neither simple nor straightforward. Essentially,
standards are there to ensure that products and
services conform to a level that provides necessary
safety and environmental features and are fit for
purpose. Standards therefore set a benchmark
and consequently establish a minimum level of
conformance. Best practice, on the other hand aims
to raise the bar higher than the minimum level of
conformance and often exceeds standards. To be
truly effective, best practice must draw reference
to any published standards
if available and if not,
undergo full consultation with
recognised industry bodies.
So why produce best practice
when standards suffice?
This really depends upon the
position of the individual or the
organisation. Consider the all
important issue of health, safety
and welfare. Standards have
been around for many years and
so long as you comply with the
standard(s) then theoretically, no
breach of any regulation should
occur. From a legal standpoint,
the individual or organisation
is protected from enforcement
agencies. However there is a
growing ethical standpoint within
some sectors of industry that the
minimum level of conformance
may not lead to the desired level of
improvements in safety culture and
reduction of accidents or ill health.
These ethical pioneers demand the
very best solutions and vote with
their feet for those that exceed the
minimum requirements by investing
valuable finance in best practice.
Forward-thinking companies have
recognised that just because a
standard exists and is complied with,
does not necessarily mean that best
practice is being adhered to. Some
within industry refer to best practice as
‘gold plating’ whilst others see it as an
integral part of company operations.
Regardless of viewpoint, practitioners should
always make every effort to involve manufacturers
and suppliers of products and services. Working
in partnership has to be the way forward because
attempts to introduce best practice could actually
lead to contraventions of standards, poor working
practices and litigation.
Consider the example of convex mirrors fitted to
machines to improve all round visibility. At the turn
of the year 2000 when visibility was the issue of
discussion, convex mirrors did not actually conform
to standards laid down in the Supply of Machinery
Regulations and any attempt to remove traditional
pencil beam mirrors and replace them with new
convex mirrors rendered the machine as being nonconformant
with the standard (even though some
saw convex mirrors as being best practice). Others
who were misinformed but well intentioned ended up
with pencil mirrors and convex mirrors fitted in ample
abundance – machines began to look more like
Vespas than JCBs!
So what is the message here? When attempting to
implement best practice, be aware of the regulations,
consult with experts and conduct a risk assessment
that is appropriate to the specific machine being
assessed, working in its specific environment with
given hazards.
30
February 2008

Advertising feature
Have you found the
The Missing List has launched
its new website, providing for the
first time a single point of focus
for ‘missing information’ on the
internet (www.themissinglist.
co.uk). The Missing List provides
a facility that has been specifically
created to dramatically improve
the chances of recovering just
about anything that has been lost
or stolen, whether possessions,
people or pets. Now you can
search a huge database, browse
rewards, post appeals or offer
rewards yourself, from the comfort
of your own PC and, importantly,
within an environment that has
been designed to keep you safe
and within the law. Loss, whether
by accident or criminal activity,
induces a feeling of helplessness;
the Missing List aims to return
control by providing this unique
recovery resource.
In devising this system the
Missing List team has sought the
involvement of experts in all the
relevant fields - the police, major
charities, trade associations,
academic and commercial
organisations. Working partners
include Crimestoppers, Missing
People (formerly the National
Missing Person’s Helpline), the
Kennel Club, the Salvation
Army, the Art Loss Register
and OPERC.
“Think of it as a Google for the
lost or stolen, then include the
user participation of Wikipedia
and for good measure add the
functionality of eBay,” says Paul
Burridge, founder of the site.
“And you are getting close to
how the Missing List works.”
Searching the site is free,
although to post an appeal the
user is first required to register.
Registration costs £1 and this
includes the first appeal. Any
further appeals are charged at £1.
Commercial users are charged
for posting appeals. Funds raised
in this way are donated to the
charity of the user’s choice from
the Missing List roster. All the
facilities on the site are free of
charge for the police, charities
and local authorities.
Missing list?
The Missing List encourages
users to be proactive. There’s a
‘virtual safe deposit’ facility built
in where registered users can
store ownership information -
photographs, serial numbers etc
– so that they can be best
prepared should the worst
happen. There’s also a Personal
Security Store which makes
available ‘simple devices that
save lives’ such as attack alarms,
portable door and window alarms
and carbon monoxide detectors
as well as an RFID (microchip)
property protection solution
specifically aimed at the
ordinary householder.
There are five main categories
within the Missing List database -
Crime, Information, Possessions,
People and Animals - which
are further divided into fifty sub
categories. So whether it is cars,
jewellery, machinery, musical
instruments or irreplaceable family
pets that have ‘hit the missing
list’ you’ll find incredibly detailed,
easy to use forms to enable you
to swiftly and accurately post an
appeal.
The Missing List takes user safety
very seriously - suffering loss can
make you emotionally vulnerable
and offering a reward can make
you physically vulnerable. Built
in to the Missing List system is a
personal Control Centre where
contact between users and
respondents can be conducted in
complete anonymity. The site
also features a comprehensive
User Safety Guide aimed at
making users aware of how to
minimise any potential danger
to their personal safety.
Throughout the site there are
warnings that, if followed, will
avoid any legal issues associated
with posting appeals.
A prominent feature of the site
is the Local Search facility. This
enables users to search within
a designated radius of a given
postcode. Users, be they police
officers or members of the general
public, have the facility to post
information on a Local Notice
Board which will then appear in
postcode searches. This will allow
important local information to be
targeted with great precision.
Users can also opt for regular
local updates by email.
For further information please
contact:
Paul Burridge
Indico Communications
tel | 0207 684 2614 or 0207 336 8828
mobile | 07967 665203
(weekends and out of office hours)
paulburridge@themissinglist.co.uk
February 2008
31

Special report
The OPERC-Safetynet
health and safety test
What is Safetynet?
Safetynet is a powerful tool that not only tests
knowledge of health & safety but also provides
detailed training needs analysis and a range of
management reports. Safetynet can be used
in isolation as a health and safety test or can
be integrated into learning and development
programmes when used in conjunction with
distance learning modules developed by OPERC.
The Safetynet system offers a number of tests.
The first is a general health and safety test suitable
for all employees and employers, not just those
working with specialised mobile plant. The second
is a more specific ‘Operational’ test relating to
health and safety associated with the operation of
mobile plant – the system allows the user to select
an industry and the type of plant being operated;
the test is then tailored to suit them. A further
test has been devised to cover the mandatory
knowledge requirement of the level 2 Plant
Operations S/NVQ and it provides evidence of
knowledge suitable to meet the requirements of that
qualification. Another test is on the way, which will
address the knowledge requirements of the level 2
Processing Operations S/NVQ. Safetynet can
also be used to test and benchmark existing
knowledge prior to individuals undertaking an
S/NVQ, the training needs analysis and distance
learning materials (mentioned in this article)
can then be utilised to complete the knowledge
necessary for an S/NVQ.
The Safetynet system provides a comprehensive
administration suite, whereby the user can purchase
test credits, view reports and information about tests,
access help and guidance documents, manage their
personal account or contact OPERC about the test.
Most importantly, the user can initiate a test, which
includes an option to undertake a demonstration of
how the test works (a good feature for new users
and candidates).
The Operational Safetynet test is comprised of
50 questions, selected at random from a bank
of over 700. Within the 50 questions there are a
predetermined number of questions on certain test
categories, such as fire, manual handling or safety
signs - as well as questions specific to the machine
and industry that the user has selected. When the
test candidate is asked a question, four answers
are presented and either the mouse or the keyboard
can be used to select the required answer. Users
can take the test at their own speed; there are no
time limits.
Once the candidate has completed the test, they are
given the result both in terms of pass/fail, number of
questions answered correctly and as a percentage.
In addition, any incorrectly answered questions are
listed, with the correct answer that should have been
selected. The results are emailed to the invigilator for
distribution or to be kept on file and he/she also has
access to comprehensive reports, which provide a
breakdown of all tests undertaken.
How does Safetynet work?
Safetynet is an entirely web-based system,
accessible through the OPERC website (www.
operc.com). There is no need to purchase or even
download special software. The main benefit of
being entirely web-based is that the test can be
accessed literally anywhere where there is Internet
access, including PDA’s and ‘Smartphones’ with
a 3G card, and also at any time. All information
is stored securely and is easily managed from a
remote location; scores and test results cannot
be misplaced.
32
February 2008

Special report
illustrations that explain the correct
procedures for the topic and also the
health and safety implications. When
the candidate has read the information,
a short multiple-choice test is provided
on the information contained within
that module. Candidates also have an
opportunity to re-take the Safetynet test
if they fail.
Safetynet is unique because unlike many
other test systems, members own their
own ‘secure’ section of the system. This
means that members can manage the
test system from their own premises and
remotely. Members have total control
over the management of the system and
scheduling of tests to be undertaken.
The test is available to use virtually 24
hours a day, seven days a week – the
only restriction is the availability of the
test invigilator.
What does it cost?
The test is available to OPERC members
at a cost of £15.00 per credit (£12.50 per
credit if 30 or more credits are purchased
in one order). Credits can be ordered
on line and once ordered are instantly
available for use. This represents good
value as well as flexibility in delivery.
Why try Safetynet?
These will indicate which areas the candidate may need to
improve their knowledge of, including which questions the
candidate failed to answer correctly.
OPERC has developed a range of distance learning modules,
which can also be accessed through the website. So if, for
example, a candidate failed a test due to poor knowledge
of manual handling, then the test invigilator could access,
download or print the appropriate module for the candidate.
Each workbook contains comprehensive information and
Safetynet is a comprehensive, easy to
use system for testing health and safety
knowledge. It can be used in a number
of ways, including applications such as
level 2 S/NVQs in Plant Operations. It
is cost effective and time efficient and
can be used by anyone, no IT training
or experience is required. Safetynet is
more than just a test, it is an innovative
technological tool allowing employers
to measure knowledge retained and to
manage their employees’ knowledge.
February 2008
33

A1 for
A-Plant triumphed as Hire Company of the Year (over
five outlets) at the Hire Awards of Excellence 2007
hosted in Cardiff by Hire Association Europe (HAE),
the leading trade association for hire and rental
companies in the UK and Ireland.
news
The national Hire Company of the Year accolade
is considered to be one of the main awards of the
HAE’s Hire Awards of Excellence - widely recognised
as the symbol of excellence within the hire industry -
and is awarded to the company operating more than
five outlets who can best demonstrate a consistent
record of delivery, exceptional levels of customer
service and a firm commitment to health, safety and
environmental initiatives.
Three national companies were shortlisted for Hire
Company of the Year (over five outlets) and A-Plant,
which has over 2,000 employees, more than 200
locations nationwide and a vast fleet of equipment
available to hire – from dumpers, excavators
and air tools to generators, powered access
machines and traffic control equipment – was
declared the worthy winner.
A-Plant
As well as scooping the national Hire Company
of the Year award, A-Plant was shortlisted for a
remarkable five other awards at the Hire Awards
of Excellence 2007 - Hire Person of the Year for
A-Plant’s Chief Executive Officer Sat Dhaiwal,
Employee or Team of the Year for A-Plant’s
Marketing Team, Best Presented Hire Outlet of
the Year for A-Plant’s Oxford depot, Excellence
in Training and Best Contribution to Health and
Safety and/or Environmental Issues.
A-Plant’s Chief Executive Officer Sat Dhaiwal
said: “We’re absolutely delighted to win Hire
Company of the Year. This is one of the awards
that every significant player in the hire industry
strives to achieve and it truly is testimony to the
great strides forward we have made in the last 12
months and the excellent team spirit we have at
A-Plant. This caps off a remarkable year; since
2006, we have won a total of 12 top industry or
regional awards and been shortlisted or highly
commended for a further 26 awards.”
Mr Sat Dhaiwal, Chief Executive Officer, A-Plant receiving the award at the Hire Awards of Excellence 2007
34
February 2008

Changes
within the
HSE Noise
and Vibration
Team
News has come from the HSE London Offices
recently that Mr Brian Coles of the Noise
and Vibration Team has retired. Brian was a
real pioneer within the HSE and ensured that
practical solutions were produced to resolve
the real life vibration problems facing industry
practitioners. He had a great ability to bring
parties together to form working groups and
strategic alliances that would then pursue
the production of best practice initiatives and
implement them.
One insider said that “Brian always put
common sense first and his contribution
to noise and vibration was absolutely
outstanding. He was respected by all parties
involved throughout industry and academia
alike and advances made to improve operator
safety could not have been achieved without
him. It is a huge blow to see Brian retire but
we wish him all the very best in his retirement
– he deserves it!”
Good news is on the horizon though, as
Mr Colin Chatten from the HSE Workplace
Transport Team will be stepping into Brian’s
shoes. Mr Barry Robinson, OPERC Chief
Examiner, said: “We could not have expected
to have a better man to replace the legendary
Brian Coles. During his work in the Workplace
Transport Team, working alongside Ms. Carol
Grainger, Colin and the team have forged
ahead with some excellent work whether that
be slips and trips, all round vision or operator
training and competence development.
He has an ability to perform to the highest
standards and a proven track record for
working with all parties involved with plant
and equipment. He is the ideal candidate for
the post!”
Meet
OPERC’s
master
engraver
Part of the work within OPERC as a non profit-making
trade body is to recognise outstanding contributions
made by companies or individuals to safety, innovation
or technological advancement in the pursuit of
excellence. Lead crystal prizes for the awards are often
created by Staffordshire Crystal, but the engraving itself
is always undertaken by the master engraver
Mr Carl Palmer.
Carl has been working as a craftsman and artisan all
his life and currently operates within the premises of
Royal Brierley Crystal. It is a sad fact that today, industry
has lost many craftsman like Carl and instead, crystal
trophies, awards and prizes are inscribed using a cheap,
quick and relatively simple sandblasting technique.
To produce letters on trophies, or flora and fauna on
OPERC crystal wear, Carl uses the age old technique
of copper wheel engraving and painstakingly hand
engraves every single detail.
The final work really is a master piece and OPERC
Executive is indebted to Carl for his critical part in
OPERC’s effort to recognise the excellent work that
some within industry undertake.
For further information contact Carl Palmer on:
07751 978731
news
Not all good news then as one insider
quipped “Who’s going to replace Colin then
in the Workplace Transport?” Knowing the
team within Workplace Transport, an ideal
candidate has already been nurtured and is
ready to continue the good work.
February 2008
35

news
DRS demolishing
the South West
St Austell based demolition and plant hire specialist company, DRS Demolition
National, has been increasing their existing fleet since the beginning of the year
with a number of machines purchased from the UK’s sole distributor of Komatsu,
Marubeni-Komatsu.
“Due to the nature of projects we are involved in, good
quality, reliable machines are required. Komatsu are
just that; but are also great value for money and are
delivered quickly.”
DRS Demolition’s new fleet, which incorporates 2
x PC130-7, 3 x PC210LCD-8, 2 x PC450LCD-7, 1
x PC450-7 (high reach demolition spec) and two
Furukawa low noise breakers, has been involved
in some high profile projects this year.
Back in January, MSC Napoli, a ship transporting
over 2000 containers, with about 150 of them
carrying hazardous chemical substances, beached
off the coast of Devon after being damaged in
storms whilst on route to South Africa. DRS
Demolition assisted in cleaning and the removal of
debris washed ashore on Branscombe beach.
More recently, the company has been working with
fire crews following the tragic fire at Penhallow
Hotel in Newquay, Cornwall in August.
Nick Southall, Plant Manager at DRS Demolition
National gives reasons for his latest Komatsu
purchase:
“Due to the nature of projects we are involved
in, good quality, reliable machines are required.
Komatsu are just that; but are also great value for
money and are delivered quickly.”
Nick continues, “These latest machines have also
come with Komtrax, this allows us to monitor, on a
daily basis, the machine’s location, fuel and water
levels, service meter readings and importantly, any
cautions and abnormalities that may occur.”
DRS Demolition National, established 25 years ago
by its current owner Dave Shrigley, specialises in
civil engineering projects from initial demolition and
site clearance to full remedial work and salvage.
36
February 2008

February 2008
37

Special report
Friend or Foe! All Terrain Vehicles
In the last two issues of PEP I discussed two types
of RNLI launch vehicle – the Talus MBH tractor
and the Talus MB-4H tractor. Those who read the
articles would have appreciated just how specialised
these launch vehicles have to be to do the job asked
of them.
However, it is not only specialised tractors that the
RNLI uses to launch boats with. At some of the
RNLI inshore lifeboat stations (ILB), small compact
tractors are used, especially if the beach condition
is soft or steep gradients have to be negotiated. But
where conditions allow, i.e. flat launch areas and
firm conditions, the RNLI use All Terrain Vehicles
(ATV), Quad Bikes, to launch boats.
The RNLI also uses ATV’s for beach lifeguards.
This is mainly for the purpose of conveying their
kit, Arancia inflatable boats and jet skies, down to
the water’s edge, but on some larger beaches they
are used to patrol the water’s edge, as they allow
the lifeguard to get to the incident quickly saving
valuable minutes and in some cases lives.
The RNLI has in service over 80 ATV’s around our
coast with the vast majority being with the Beach
Lifeguards, covering beaches from Boscombe in
Dorset right around the south coast and up as far
North Devon.
Those of you who have used these machines, or
are involved in the training or the safety side, will
appreciate just how dangerous they can be. Just
type ATV into the HSE’s website and you will see
vast amounts of safety information and sadly the
numbers of operators killed or seriously injured.
These machines, like any other machine in untrained
hands, are dangerous. Many people have an
unfortunate misconception about Quad bikes; they
think that because they have four wheels, large
knobbly tyres and a big seat they are stable, safe,
easy machines to ride but nothing could be further
from the truth. The fact is that anybody that operates
ATV’s needs specialist training. That training in
the RNLI’ s case fell down to me before I retired as
Machinery Training Instructor.
Without sounding disrespectful to our younger
generation, I had a reasonably hard task teaching
young men and women lifeguards how to stay safe
on these bikes. I knew that I had been just the same
at their age, wanting to see how fast they could go
or how steep a hill they could climb, so the first thing
I had to do was to explain just how dangerous these
machines could be.
I would start a training session by showing the
excellent HSE video, ‘Riding for Fall’. This video quite
38
February 2008

Special report
vividly shows what can happen to an operator if he
or she is untrained or the machine is not properly
maintained. This video would certainly hit home and
you could see the trainees’ faces grimace at the
staged accidents. (The HSE also has some
excellent free training information PDF downloads
on their website.)
So just what makes All Terrain Vehicles dangerous to
operate? The RNLI used Honda TRX 450S Fourtrax
Foreman quads; these bikes weigh 274kg and their
432.6cc engines make them capable of speeds over
60mph. They have a five speed auto transmission
and two or four wheel drive - all in all they are a
powerful heavy machine.
To operate these bikes safely you need to be able to
move your body weight backwards, forwards and side
to side - hence the big saddle. There is no differential
unit in the rear axle; it is just a crown wheel and
pinion, with the crown wheel being fixed directly onto
a solid bar axle. There is a differential unit in the front
drive unit with half shaft and constant velocity joints
at the wheels and gearbox end, which enables you
to steer. As a consequence of the set up with the
rear axle (both wheels turning at the same speed,
fixed) when you come to corner with the bike the rear
wheels are trying to push you straight ahead, which
can cause the bike to roll over. To counteract this
effect you need to move your body weight out to one
side, the opposite side to the corner you are turning.
This allows the nearside wheel to lift slightly and skit
the surface with the offside wheel pushing you round
the radius of the corner; in effect the opposite to a
motor cycle. If you have ever ridden an ATV on hard
surfaces you will know just how hard they are to steer
even when shifting body weight.
Ascending, descending or transversing gradients is
especially dangerous and again the big seat comes
into effect. One of the biggest causes of injury or death
is front or rear wheel overturns. So when ascending a
gradient you need to move your body weight forward
almost at an angle to the gradient. When descending
you need to move your weight back
towards the rear of the bike, again
at an angle relative to the slope.
When transversing a gradient
(which should be avoided if
possible) you must move your body
weight into the hillside, again at an
angle relevant to the slope.
distributed evenly between front and rear carriers.
Certainly – no passengers allowed.
With regards to trailers, the maximum tow hitch tongue
weight (downward load) is just 14kg. The tow hitch ball
is attached directly to the rear axle so if this weight is
exceeded the effect is to lift the front end of the bike;
the rear axle becomes the fulcrum point, which in turn
lifts the front wheels seriously affecting the steering.
If the load on the trailer is too far back then the tail
weight comes into play, with a lifting effect on the rear
wheels causing loss of traction. Most ATV’s can tow
about double their kerb weight but the trailer must
be loaded evenly allowing the axle of the trailer to
become the fulcrum; too much load and the tail begins
to wag the dog
Finally let us consider PPE. First and foremost a
helmet must be worn; they are a lot harder than your
skull! Snag proof clothing and safety boots are also
essential. Having said that I will leave you with one
last thought - can you imagine the training nightmare I
had with beach lifeguards? These girls and boys do a
fantastic job and are the unsung heroes of the RNLI.
They save many lives each year but with bleached
blond long hair and sunglasses there can be a
certain Bay Watch image to keep up! I had the task of
reaching a compromise with lifeguards, managers and
the HSE as to what they would and should wear. Steel
toecap boots were out of the question, as was snag
proof clothing, but I did win the helmet argument - all
our lifeguards wear a specially designed water craft
Gecko Helmet.
If you are going to ride an All Terrain Vehicle get
trained and you have a real work friend. Ignore
training and your ATV could become your worst foe!
Remember this: if you think the cost of training is high,
think just how much the cost of ignorance is!
Pictures kindly donated courtesy of the RNLI.
Technical data by: Graham Eaves,
Machinery Training Instructor RNLI, retired.
The bikes can carry loads and
are fitted with carriers front and
rear. There are warning notices
instructing the operator of the
maximum load to be carried
and ideally the weight should be
February 2008
39

news
JCB
support
for NSPCC
JCB employees have donated
£16,000 to the NSPCC after raising
money through a lottery scheme.
The £16,000 has been collected by JCB’s Hydraulic
Business Unit (HBU), which builds the hydraulic
rams that manoeuvre the excavating arms on JCB
machines. The HBU manages a lottery scheme in
which employees pay a minimum £1 to enter
weekly draws. Half of the money goes into a
charity fund. A maximum prize of £1,000 is paid out
to winning members.
The Pot of Gold lottery scheme, run in
conjunction with Stoke City Football Club, was
set up in 1999 as part of JCB’s successful
Digging Deep for the NSPCC campaign.
Employees raised £1 million through the
campaign, and that figure was matched by JCB
chairman Sir Anthony Bamford, taking the total
raised by the company to £2 million.
Bob Willett, HBU group leader, said: “Even after
the campaign finished in 2000, we continued
paying into the lottery. We’re really pleased that
we’ve been able to raise all this extra money.”
The £2 million raised by the JCB Digging Deep
Appeal helped the NSPCC’s FULL STOP
Appeal reach its national £250 million target in
February, this year.
Malcolm Fox, Managing Director of JCB World
Brands and the former Chairman of the JCB
Digging Deep Appeal, said:
“It is wonderful that this lottery
has continued to raise money
long after the company’s
original target was reached.
I am delighted that another
£16,000 has been raised for
such a valuable cause.”
DREAM COMES TRUE
FOR JCB FANATIC
A JCB fanatic who went on national
television to tell how he dreamt of one
day being a digger driver has been given
£2,000 worth of training by the company.
Mark Bieliauskas, of Weoley Castle,
Birmingham, persuaded panelists on the
ITV show Fortune: Million Pound Giveaway
to part with £2,500 to pay for him to learn
how to operate a JCB backhoe loader.
But knowing that 25-year-old Mark would
need capital to buy equipment if his plans
to run his own plant company one day
came to fruition, JCB has told him to put
the ITV money to one side. Instead, JCB
will pay for him to train.
A JCB spokesman said: “Mark has not
only shown himself to be a true fan of JCB
but also someone with a desire to achieve
something and a determination to achieve
it. We wish him every success for the
future.”
40
February 2008

news
CMPE record
20,000 th CoC
plant operator
The Contractors Mechanical Plant Engineers
(CMPE) are one of the most prominent and oldest
organisations for plant and equipment professionals,
having established themselves throughout the UK
during the 1950’s. CMPE has always contended
that their Certificate of Competence (CoC) was one
of the first, if not the first, competence certificate for
plant and equipment operators.
At a recent press conference event, Mr Chris Miller
who heads up the CoC management committee
announced that the scheme had just registered its
20,000th candidate. Mr Miller said:
Mr Chris Miller, National Registrar,
CMPE Certificate of Competence
“This is a fantastic achievement for the
CMPE and the CoC scheme, both of
which continue to grow from strength
to strength. We believe at the CMPE
that the CoC card scheme provides an
invaluable service to industry that other
card schemes cannot fulfil. The scheme
is a credit to our members many of
whom are actively engaged in the
continual development and refinement
of the scheme.”
Mr Miller also revealed that the CoC management
committee has recently revised a whole range of
supporting materials and brochures for the scheme
and using these, the CMPE plan to actively promote
the CoC throughout 2008.
Mr Miller said:
“We plan to host a series of around the country road
shows using the extensive UK network of CMPE
branches and national plant shows and events.
These are exciting times for the association and
we look forward to recording the next milestone of
30,000 registered operators.”
February 2008
41

special report
Special report
Do you HAV good data?
Since the main thrust of the Hand-arm Vibration
(HAV) debate began over three years ago, there
has been much discussion, many meetings
attended and many working groups formed to try
to first understand the complexity of the issues
and second, to develop strategies to overcome
these issues and reduce the risk posed. The
HAVTEC centre at Loughborough University (and
the associated register hosted by the OPERC
website) has been instrumental in much of the work
undertaken and this has only been possible with the
staunch support of the Major Contractors Group,
Construction Confederation and Speedy Hire
and other Major Hire Company Group members.
Progress to date includes:
The successful testing of hundreds
of tools to ISO5349
A new agreement with the European Power
Tools Association (EPTA) to collaborate on
their new standard.
The production of various training modules,
guidance documents and HAV calculator.
The culmination of this effort has meant that
practitioners within industry are more informed and
educated on the finer nuances of the HAV issue.
HAVTEC is also now widely supported with over
12,000 users throughout the UK and abroad and
this support has recently been bolstered by EPTA’s
announcement to support the HAVTEC register as
the UK’s official online register for HAV data.
For other tool types (other than European
power tools under the EPTA banner) some
standards for new tools remain either open to
interpretation, in production or non-existent. As a
result, manufacturers and industry practitioners
continue to test their products at HAVTEC to the
ISO5349 standard and many practitioners base
their purchasing decisions upon data contained
within the register. In the vast majority of cases this
decision is based upon a wealth of data with a tool
often being measured in various applications.
However, for some tools only one or two
measurements have been recorded and for
these tools it is very difficult, if not impossible, to
determine the complete natural range of vibration
data that could be observed for that tool. A standard
test uses a minimum of 15 measurements and
three people (five measurements per person) to
derive mean and standard deviation values. These
values are then used to provide one set of data on
the HAVTEC register. Because of the variability
associated with HAV exposure measurement, it
is now apparent that many tools could produce
vibration levels significantly higher or lower than
the one or two values recorded on HAVTEC. This
does not mean that the data is incorrect because all
data is good data and allows the natural spread of
vibration for any tool to be observed and recorded.
Rather, it now seems apparent that purchasing
decisions should ideally be based upon the range
of vibration levels recorded, not simply one mean
value. If users examine the HAVTEC register,
particularly for those tools that have been tested
extensively, then one can readily observe the
natural variance that occurs – this could be as much
as 10m/s². Taking one or two values does not reveal
the trend and these values could be unusually high
or low – you just cannot be certain.
42
February 2008

Introducing the
EngD award
at Loughborough
University
The Centre for Innovative and
Collaborative Engineering
(CICE) was setup in 1999 after
an expansion of the EPSRC’s
prestigious Engineering
Doctorate (EngD) Programme.
The key objectives of the
Centre are:
To sustain a high quality
research and training
programme that meets the
needs of the construction
industry, and enhances its
knowledge base.
To maintain close partnership
with the industry sponsors in
addressing their core
technical and business
needs, and to broaden
industry participation in
the Centre.
To produce high calibre
doctoral graduates that can
drive innovation in the
industry with a high level of
technical, managerial and
business competence.
The Centre is funded by the
EPSRC and a group of over
40 industrial sponsors. Initial
funding for the first 5 years
consisted of £4M in cash and
over £2M of ‘in kind’ support.
Further funding has been
secured for another 5 years.
The Centre (CICE) had its first
intake of Research Engineers
(REs) in October 1999. The
Research Engineers (who are
recruited from a combination
of top class graduates and
experienced engineers from
the sponsoring firms) are
awarded the degree of ‘Doctor of
Engineering’ (EngD) after 4 years
of advanced study and research.
Research Engineers who
are recruited onto the EngD
Programme receive a stipend
of £14,100k per annum (as of
October 2007). In addition they
are paid a minimum of £3k per
annum from the sponsoring
company, which can be
increased to any amount but
cannot exceed the basic stipend.
This equates to a MINIMUM of
£17,100k tax free p.a. In addition
to the minimum top up paid by
the sponsoring company an
annual Centre contribution of £3k
is payable to the Centre for each
year that it has an RE. Tuition
fees are paid by the University at
home student rate.
Many of the Researchers are
seconded onto the programme
from their employing companies,
who put forward a project title
that their Research Engineer
will work on. The benefit of this
is two-fold: the company keeps
their employee and benefits from
the findings of their research,
advertising feature
in addition to receiving a
contribution of £10k pa which, as
an industrial studentship, is paid
to the company (the Researcher
does not receive a top up as
they stay on the company
payroll). The only outlay from the
company is thus the £3k annual
centre contribution for each
year that they have a Research
Engineer.
The Researchers are also happy
as they still benefit from company
perks such as the pension
scheme and working with their
current employers.
Further benefits for the
company include:
strengthened links between
academia and industry;
the opportunity to help
academia understand industry
problems (as the company
puts forward the project);
cost effective funding for
research;
access to a wealth of
expertise;
the ability to groom potential
employees; and
the chance to tackle a
problem in a new way
(including longer-term issues)
If you or any of your
employees are interested
in the EngD award, then
please contact:
Dr David J. Edwards
Senior Lecturer
Loughborough University
email:
D.J.Edwards@lboro.ac.uk
February 2008
43

competition
Spot the Difference!
Win an mtrack theft protection tracking system!
Study the two pictures carefully. If you think you can spot the difference between
them, then you can enter our free draw to win an mtrack theft recovery
tracking system, complete with one year’s free annual monitoring.
To enter the competition, simply email OPERC
(pep@operc.com) with your answer and
contact details, quoting “Spot the
Difference”. The closing date for
entries is April 30th 2008 and
the winner will be drawn
at random from correct
entries received.
“Make sure
you have the
last laugh,
catch your
thief by fitting
mtrack”
For further details on mtrack theft
recovery and asset monitoring services look within the
new OPERC guidance on plant theft sponsored by
Automatrics (reviewed in this journal on page 10 and
available from the OPERC on-line bookshop).
Or why not meet us at the OPERC Spring Conference
on 27th February or the ITS 08 Conference at the
Barbican Centre on the 6th March
Automatrics helps to protect owners with low cost high
performance tracking solutions.
www.mtrackonline.co.uk | Tel: 01329 663812
February 2008
45

news megabytes
MB
News
Megabytes
A-Plant appoint new director
Hand-held vibrating
tools may expose you
to HAV … !
A-Plant has appointed Douglas McLuckie as
the company’s new Director of Environment,
Health and Safety and Performance
Standards. This new appointment reflects
the increasing focus at A-Plant on improving
safety standards in construction and the many
other industries served by the company.
Volvo win new contracts
Breaking with tradition, W & G Owen of
Criccieth, North Wales has opted for a
Volvo BL61 Plus for its farming and leisure
activities. Not only is the BL61 Plus the first
Volvo branded product purchased by this
family run business, it is also the first piece
of Volvo Construction Equipment retailed by
Volvo’s new compact dealer for North Wales
– Griffith A’I Gwmni Cyf.
HSC welcomes the
establishment of the
Risk and Regulation
Advisory Council
The Chair of the Health and Safety
Commission, Judith Hackitt, has welcomed
the announcement of the establishment of
the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council
(RRAC). She expressed the Commission’s
and the Health and Safety Executive’s strong
interest in working with the new body to
address the key issues related to public risk
and the role of policy makers and regulators.
Ms Hackitt said, “In recent years ‘Elf & Safety’
has become a universal excuse for banning
many low risk activities and often in situations
where there is actually no regulatory
requirement at all. We have long promoted
a common sense approach to risk and very
much look forward to working with the
RRAC to identify new ways to take this
principle further”.
Have you thought about
advertising in Plant and
Equipment Professional?
Email us at pep@operc.com for
more details.
46
February 2008

Letters to
the Editor
Do you have any views or opinions
you would like to share with other
readers?
Send your letters to the Editor to:
Off-highway Plant and Equipment
Research Centre (OPERC)
PO Box 5039
Dudley
West Midlands
DY1 9FQ
or email us quoting
‘Letters to the Editor’
to pep@operc.com
Farewell my friends and colleagues
After a decade presiding over the plant desk at Construction News, I
have taken the big decision to step up and away to take up the Editor’s
position at CN’s recently acquired sister magazine RAC on February 18.
Nothing to do with cars, but in fact building services and the high tech
world of refrigeration and air conditioning.
The cooling and heating industry has a lot of similarities to the plant
industry in that it is a community full of people passionate about their
business and focused on the twin pillars of innovation and service.
For me personally it represents a great opportunity not only to edit a
magazine but also to get involved in a range of conferences and awards.
It is not a decision I have taken lightly as it has been a hugely enjoyable
ten years and the industry has provided plenty to write about. And let’s
face it, we have consistently provided the best weekly coverage of the
industry – thanks in no small part to the involvement and commitment
of my contacts, to whom I add a personal note of thanks for all your
time and effort.
The good news is that Construction News continues to be committed to
covering the industry in depth and I know that my boss Nick Edwards
will ensure that my successor keeps up the good work and continues to
work with key people. Although I am convinced I will be a hard act
to follow!
Andrew Gaved
Plant and Technical Editor
Construction News
Fitness to operate
Letters
I noted with interest your commentary on assessing fitness to operate plant.
The HSE already publishes guidance on fitness to operate a Lift truck, the
risks of this are presumably comparable with those of other construction
plant. The guidance recommends health checks every 5 years over the age
of 40, the standards involved are broadly the same as for a standard
driver’s license i.e. group 1. The aim would be to exclude, for example
someone whose vision was too poor to enable them to operate the vehicle
safely; or who suffered a condition (or took medication) which may result
in sudden loss of consciousness.
It is wise to distinguish health assessment for fitness to work (i.e. is
this person fit to safely do this job) from health surveillance, which
is specifically aimed at identifying and assessing conditions which
are likely to have been caused by work activities (such as
vibration, noise etc).
Wendy Jones
Occupational Health Adviser
Loughborough University
We reserve the right to edit letters.
Letters printed represent the opinions of
the author and do not necessarily reflect
those of the Editors or the Off-highway
Plant and Equipment Research Centre.
February 2008
47

48
February 2008